← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./54317/2021rejected

Arjun Ram v. The State Of Bihar

2022-05-10Mr. Justice Arvind Srivastava2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.54317 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-216 Year-2021 Thana- CHAPRA MUFFASIL District- Saran ====================================================== 1.

ARJUN RAM S/O- Laldas Ram Resident of Village - Lohada, P.S. Chapra Muffasil, District - Saran.

2.

Bablu Kumar @ Bablu Kumar Ram S/O- Laldas Ram Resident of Village - Lohada, P.S. Chapra Muffasil, District - Saran. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Akshay Lal Pandit For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Ajit Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 10-05-2022 Heard both sides.

Petitioners apprehend their arrest in Chapra Muffasil P.S. Case No.216 of 2021 registered under Sections 342, 323, 324, 308, 325, 452 380, 354B, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case due to village politics. It is further submitted that no such occurrence has taken place as alleged in the F.I.R. The petitioners have got no criminal antecedent.

Learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer for bail by contending that petitioner no.2 Bablu Kumar @ Bablu

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54317 of 2021(2) dt.10-05-2022 2/2 Kumar Ram is alleged to have given farsa blow on the head of the informant on account of which she sustained injuries, which are corroborated by the injury report. He also submits that when the daughter-in-law of the informant came to save her, petitioner no.1 is alleged to have caught hold and torn her clothes with bad intention. Therefore, the petitioners do not deserve anticipatory bail.

Having considered the facts aforesaid, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, their prayer for bail is rejected. (Arvind Srivastava, J) Harish/- U T